ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Long-term survival and success rates of immature versus root-end resected mature tooth autotransplants: part I of a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient versus clinician-reported outcomes following tooth autotransplantation: part II of a retrospective cohort study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the survival and success rates of autotransplanted immature teeth versus mature teeth treated with extraoral root-end resection (EORER), and assess inter-rater agreement in radiographic evaluation between oral surgeons (OS) and general practitioners (GPs). MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients who underwent autotransplantation between 2000 and 2022 were retrospectively identified and invited for clinical and radiographic follow-up examinations. Periapical radiographs were independently evaluated by three OS and three GPs. Predictors of survival and success were analyzed using univariate generalized estimating equation models.
resultsFifty-eight autotransplanted teeth (39 immature, 19 mature) in 50 patients were included. Immature transplants showed higher survival (89.7% vs. 73.7%; mean follow-up 8.4 vs. 5.6 years) and higher success rates (63.3% vs. 31.3%) than EORER-treated mature transplants. Pulp revascularization was observed in 88.5% of immature and 54.5% of EORER-treated mature teeth. Longer splinting and pristine recipient sites were associated with higher survival; premolar and molar sites with higher success (p ≤ 0.047). Inter-rater agreement was lowest for pulp canal obliteration, with OS showing higher agreement than GPs (p = 0.02). GPs generally reported more pathological findings on the radiographs.
conclusionsImmature transplants demonstrated higher survival and success rates than EORER-treated mature transplants. However, pulp revascularization was observed in over half of mature transplants. Radiographic assessment varied considerably between OS and GPs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Immature donor teeth remain the preferred option for autotransplantation. Nevertheless, EORER extends eligibility to mature donor teeth by promoting pulp revascularization, potentially avoiding root canal treatment. Standardized radiographic criteria and calibration are warranted for follow-up over time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.